Science and Research Committee on May 5th, 2022

[Ron McKerlie]

Thank you, MP Collins. It's so nice to see you. Thank you for all your support in Hamilton and Stoney Creek.

It's very important, obviously, to keep Canada's brand as pristine as it is around the world when it comes to attracting talent.

Most international students who I speak to—about 5,000 study at our college right now—come to Canada with a dream, not of working for somebody else, but of starting their own business. Many of them come from entrepreneurial families. Many of them are already focused on creating a business or helping to expand the family business.

Any policy change that would help support entrepreneurs as they come into the country, as they study at colleges and universities and then as they start their own businesses would be incredibly helpful. One of the biggest barriers they have right now is getting access to capital upon graduation to start or expand a business.

The other thing, though, is that they have options. This is a world full of options, so as the IRCC runs into delays in terms of approving visas, they have options to go elsewhere, where they might be able to start their studies more quickly. We need to make sure, to the extent that it's possible, that those backlogs are taken care of and that the timelines are relatively short to get visas into students' hands.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you for the answers.

On a related subject, I know that student travel to Canada, specifically to Mohawk College—and to McMaster University as well—was limited during the pandemic. I'm assuming the college had to pause for a couple of years while the travel was interrupted not just here in Canada, but across the globe.

How have you pivoted since the borders have opened up? What suggestions do you have in terms of short-term, immediate priorities that the government should be looking at?

You gave us four recommendations. What is the most pressing one now, Ron, in terms of a post-pandemic recovery for colleges as it relates to top talent?

[Ron McKerlie]

Thank you very much.

The IRCC was very helpful in allowing international students to start their Canadian studies abroad during the pandemic and to study there for a period of time before they made their way to Canada. That was very helpful, so we continued with international students right through the pandemic.

For a number of reasons, including some of the challenges on the geopolitical scene in the world right now, we have a huge number of students. We have over 12,000 applications right now from international students for the college alone. McMaster has a significant number of international students as well.

Probably the biggest need we have right now is to clear the backlog of visa applications and to make sure we can get those students into Canada to continue or start their studies here.

Many of them who are willing to accept jobs working for others will have job offers on graduation. That won't be an issue. There is a huge number of vacancies in our marketplace, as you will know, and in fact in most places across Canada. The challenge right now is just to get them into the country and to land them so that they can continue or start their studies.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Schiavo, I think I have less than a minute now. You had a number of recommendations that you provided to the committee. Can you tell us what the top priority is in terms of post-pandemic recovery and how we deal with top talent in that regard?

[Nicholas Schiavo]

Absolutely. I think honestly it comes down to urgency. When we speak to our members, what we hear is we need talent now, if not two years ago. While we're very adamant to throw everything at the wall, and we talk about upskilling and retraining, I think immigration in terms of top talent is key.

I would echo the other witnesses, and say that if we can increase the timelines from the IRCC, and ideally move towards a 48-hour turnaround time for visa applications through the global talent stream, that would make a huge difference in getting the right top talent to Canadian companies and innovators.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you so much, Mr. Collins.

The floor is yours for six minutes, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, I want to say hello to my colleagues and the witnesses who are with us this evening.

My first questions are for Mr. Bergen and Mr. Schiavo from the Council of Canadian Innovators.

Gentlemen, I took some time to analyze the documents you submitted, in particular the one entitled "CCI Talent & Skills Strategy". From reading it, we can see that the labour situation is a matter of considerable concern, in particular for innovative firms. We see this in the high tech sector.

That document refers to wage inflation among tech talent. In the past year, wages have jumped by 20 per cent.

Can you explain to the committee what the result of such a rapid increase is?

[Nicholas Schiavo]

Thank you, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

If I may, I'm going to answer in English.

I think what we're seeing is when we have these major multinational firms come into Canada, often what's happening is they are sucking up the tech talent, and driving up wage inflation, but then at the same time these multinational firms can also hire Canadians from abroad. Now that remote work is so commonplace, it very much is a global tech talent race.

As a result, you have Canadians who are looking elsewhere for other jobs. They are looking to these major multinational firms that are able to pay exorbitant amounts right off the bat, and it's sucking up Canadian talent, it's sucking up Canadian innovation, it's sucking up Canadian IP.

The message is not we need to bar these multinationals, we're happy to compete, but we need to make sure that there is enough talent so that Canadian innovation can survive. That comes down to training more folks in STEM, again upskilling, bringing in more tech talent, supporting Canadians with student debt so that they stay in Canada and there is that sense of loyalty, but we really need all options on the table to try to compete with that wage inflation.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Schiavo.

There is something I'm trying to get my head around. You may be able to help the committee understand.

I had a look at the Global Innovation Index 2021, and Canada has a pretty poor track record there. We are a member of the G7, but we rank 16th in that index.

What do you think is the explanation for that? Why has Canada not managed to do better and distinguish itself on the international scene, particularly if we go by the Global Innovation Index?

[Nicholas Schiavo]

I'm not familiar with the index. Having not seen it myself yet, I will take it with a grain of salt.

What I would say is I think Canada struggles to support scale-ups, and that's really why CCI was established, that kind of high-growth Canadian firm that is looking to scale up and build. That is really where we struggle as a country.

There are a number of reasons for that. I think Canada can do a lot more in terms of IP development and protection. In particular, one thing that CCI is very focused on in the coming weeks and months is the modernization of the SR and ED tax credit.

SR and ED is, obviously, a massive program here in Canada. It's integral to Canadian innovators, but there are a number of recommendations that we hope to work with government on in terms of improving this program and ultimately helping it benefit Canadian innovation.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you for your answer.

I understand that you aren't familiar with the Global Innovation Index. I'm trying to find out something: how would you, yourself, measure Canada's progress in innovation? On that point, can you answer for the committee?

[Nicholas Schiavo]

I'm sorry, Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas, but could you expand on that question?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Yes.

I'd like to know how you measure Canada's progress in innovation.

[Nicholas Schiavo]

Right. At this time I don't have a clear answer for you, so I'm very happy to follow up.

What I would say is typically in speaking with our members and the ecosystem at large from a more qualitative standpoint we like to keep our finger on the pulse of innovation here and see what is working for Canadian innovators and what is not. In my conversations over the last several weeks, things like access to capital, protection of IP and access to talent remain the constant barriers. Those are very much the focus areas for us and those high-level measures that we are looking at constantly.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Schiavo, among the 13 recommendations made by the CCI, the Council of Canadian Innovators, we see convening a national summit of representatives from universities and the federal and provincial governments to develop a national strategy.

What can you tell the committee on that subject? What do you think Canada's present vision is when it comes to innovation?

[Nicholas Schiavo]

That is a great question, and it's a question we should all be asking.

I will say on behalf of CCI we were very pleased to see several investments in innovation in budget 2022, and think that is absolutely a step in the right direction. That's great.

Really what is missing in Canada is a unified, consolidated vision of what innovation looks like and how we reach those targets, those KPIs. The idea behind this national summit is not a photo op, it's very much—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Mr. Schiavo, I'm sorry to interrupt.

Thank you, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

Before we go to Mr. Cannings, I do want to recognize Mr. Bergen. This is not easy with the technology, but we want to acknowledge your contribution.

With that we will go to Mr. Cannings for six minutes, please.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here this evening.

I'm going to start with Ms. Wishart.

You made quite an eloquent plea to invest in students at all levels. It made a lot of sense to me. I think we should view the funding that we put into students as an investment for the future in so many ways.

You talked about how the funding provided for living expenses of master's, Ph.D, post-doc students has remained stagnant over the past 20 years. I have the feeling also that the number of those grants has declined as well.

I'm wondering if you could expand on that. Do you know where Canada sits globally with that sort of support, and why would students in their right minds want to stay here if they were able to live more comfortably and get on with good science somewhere else in the world?

[Andrea Wishart]

Thank you for your question. It's nice to meet you.

That's a fantastic question. I don't have numbers from a global sense. What I do have experience is chatting with friends and colleagues who have gone elsewhere or have come from elsewhere, so I speak much more on a student voice level.

I think Canada is one of the best countries when it comes to our NSERC funding model. I do think there are definitely some strengths to the U.S. system. I ultimately think that the way NSERC funds these studentships in terms of the numbers and the amounts is quite good, but they are kind of falling behind.

In terms of being a Canadian citizen and looking at going elsewhere, unfortunately there are those barriers of paying international fees at other institutions. I was offered a Ph.D. position in Australia some years ago. I did turn it down because, ultimately, it is more affordable to be a domestic student and pay domestic tuition. That's one of the options I was given, as well just staying in the country I was born in.

In the U.S. there may be higher dollar amounts and the ability to hire post-docs as researchers if you're a principal investigator on a project. For instance, you can write up a grant and very easily hire a post-doc on board. However, the NSF funding model is a lot more competitive, whereas NSERC is a little more egalitarian, in my view. However, again, it is stagnant and staying behind.

In terms of the post-doc awards, I believe that in Canada, there are about 7,000 Ph.D.s awarded every year. Obviously, not all of them fall under NSERC models, but there are only 180 post-doctoral fellowships offered by NSERC. They're highly competitive. To speak to Ms. Gladu's point earlier, only 35% of those 180 awards go to women.

There could be investment in not only the number of those awards, but in increasing their value to be at a market level. Once you hit the post-doc stage, it is quite alluring to go someplace else, where there is a bit more money put into post-docs and some flexibility on that front.

I think, again, we do a fantastic job within Canada. It has just stayed so stagnant over the years. Like you said, we're coming up on about 20 years with the CGSM and the PGSD. The PDF awards were adjusted in 2015, I believe, to $45,000. That would be close to $57,000 in today's money. By the time you finish three degrees, including a Ph.D., making only $57,000 a year, even if we adjusted it, is still quite low.

Globally, I think—

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Perhaps I could just jump in before I run out of time and ask you about tuition.

You mentioned the difference between international and domestic tuition. Here in Canada, we've seen steadily rising tuition at all levels over the last 30 years as government funding for universities and colleges has declined.

I'm wondering if there's something better we can do there. In my previous life, I would go to biological stations around the world and meet European students who were there volunteering in the summer because they didn't have to pay tuition. I'm wondering if you could comment on what sort of break in tuition might allow us to keep students here.

[Andrea Wishart]

Absolutely.

If there were some kind of cap to tuition, or at least when the student starts their program, perhaps capping it for the length of their program.... In the time since I've started my Ph.D., my tuition has risen constantly, year after year. I wouldn't have expected it to rise as much as it has when I started, so even just locking it in to that value for the length of a program would go a long way.

Unfortunately in Canada—I'm speaking from a biology perspective, visiting biological stations and being involved in long-term research myself—many students who are volunteering in the summers to get that experience are still paying these increasing tuition costs. There just isn't the flexibility in some of those grants to even be able to pay the volunteers. People are stretching themselves thin or going completely broke to get the experience to be competitive. They're really paying that cost in terms of their financial stability and what options they have by the end of their program.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thanks very much.

I think I'm out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cannings.

We have now completed the first round. We will go to the second round of questions.

To our witnesses, you really do have an interested group of people here.

We'll go to round two. This is a five-minute round.

We will begin with Mr. Williams.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

I'm going to first direct my questions to Mr. Bergen and Mr. Schiavo

Thank you very much for attending today. We had representatives from the University of Waterloo here for a former study, who stated that they saw as much as 75% attrition in their software engineering grads, which is really concerning.

When we talk about retention, what are your recommendations to keep more of those grads in Canada and not have them leave for the U.S.?

[Nicholas Schiavo]

That's a great question.

We are absolutely seeing the exact same thing. One of the problems again comes back to those high wages and the global competitive nature. Retention is incredibly important. Some of the recommendations that we have put forward include not messing with employee stock options. These are an important tool for innovators to help build ownership for employees, to help retain employees. We are very happy to see those stay as they are because they are incredibly important.

Beyond that, we have some recommendations in terms of supporting students with student debt, such as moving the six-month grace period for federal loans to 12 months and making that permanent. This was something we saw during the pandemic. We'd love to see this continue.

Also, one of our more innovative proposals comes from a similar scheme that we've seen in the United States, which is, is there a role for the federal government to support businesses that are helping their employees pay off student debt if they are working for a Canadian company? It's another interesting retention tool.

I think what you'll notice throughout all of these recommendations is that they're very ambitious, and we don't claim to have all the answers. We're very open to other ideas, but I think the federal government needs to take a serious look at employee retention within the tech space.